Report casts doubt on landing ships

Page Tools

Related

Government plans to buy two landing ships, larger than traditional aircraft carriers, could be a multibillion-dollar waste, according to Australia's leading defence think tank.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute said the two ships, despite their size, would not meet the military's requirements and it might be better to buy a larger number of smaller vessels.

"Requirements cannot be satisfied by just two ships, no matter how large and capable they actually are," the report by the institute's program director Aldo Borgu states.

The Government should reconsider before spending up to $2 billion on the ships, Mr Borgu said. Several smaller ships, or a combination of the two designs, could be more suitable for future operations.

Critics have claimed the ships are designed to take part in combat operations far afield, alongside US forces. They can carry up to 16 helicopters, tanks and more than 1000 troops.

Including a command centre and hospital, the ships are designed to launch an invasion from the sea. With a large flight deck they can operate as mini-aircraft carriers, dispatching several helicopters at once.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

The carriers could potentially host the vertical take-off version of the US-built Joint Strike Fighter. Australia is planning to buy up to 100 conventional versions of the aircraft.

At up to 24,500 tonnes and more than 200 metres long, the vessels are significantly larger than the navy's last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, which was retired in the early 1970s.

They will replace three transport and command ships, all half the size of the new vessels.

Although the navy is a strong supporter of the carriers, there are divisions within federal cabinet about the design, with some ministers advocating a fleet of smaller vessels.